Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan
Fixed that for you.
Forostar said:
Fixed that for you.
Afghanistan
- Thread starter Forostar
- Start date
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan
Alright
However, I should be careful with early conclusion. Just found this:
The mission in Afghanistan is becoming more and more dangerous for members of Germany's armed forces, the Bundeswehr. As large numbers of Taliban fighters move northward, NATO officials expect the situation to become increasingly precarious. More.
Alright
However, I should be careful with early conclusion. Just found this:
The mission in Afghanistan is becoming more and more dangerous for members of Germany's armed forces, the Bundeswehr. As large numbers of Taliban fighters move northward, NATO officials expect the situation to become increasingly precarious. More.
Genghis Khan
Ancient Mariner
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan
This is from the link Forostar provided (the very end).
"The Dutch have already taken that step. After losing eight soldiers in Afghanistan this year, the cabinet ended a series of heated debates with a clear resolution. The government in The Hague announced that it had reached an irrevocable decision to begin withdrawing its troops, stationed primarily in war-torn Uruzgan Province, in August 2010. Under the resolution, the last of the Dutch soldiers will be home by Christmas 2010.
The Dutch decision may have set a precedent, raising concerns among NATO military leaders over a possible domino effect. If only one major NATO country yields to domestic pressure and decides to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan, it could set off an avalanche, a Norwegian general recently told Wolfgang Schneiderhan, the inspector general of the Bundeswehr. "It would be a strategic defeat for the alliance."
Sounds like the mission is already over as I doubt the situation will be resolved by Dec. 2010.
This is from the link Forostar provided (the very end).
"The Dutch have already taken that step. After losing eight soldiers in Afghanistan this year, the cabinet ended a series of heated debates with a clear resolution. The government in The Hague announced that it had reached an irrevocable decision to begin withdrawing its troops, stationed primarily in war-torn Uruzgan Province, in August 2010. Under the resolution, the last of the Dutch soldiers will be home by Christmas 2010.
The Dutch decision may have set a precedent, raising concerns among NATO military leaders over a possible domino effect. If only one major NATO country yields to domestic pressure and decides to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan, it could set off an avalanche, a Norwegian general recently told Wolfgang Schneiderhan, the inspector general of the Bundeswehr. "It would be a strategic defeat for the alliance."
Sounds like the mission is already over as I doubt the situation will be resolved by Dec. 2010.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan
First the Dutch soldiers would leave in 2008, now the decision = leave in 2010, whatever happens. That's a prolongation. It's up to NATO to kick more butts of other countries.
Dutch troops to leave Afghanistan
December 19, 2007 - 7:11PM
Australia is hopeful the Netherlands will turn around its decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan within three years, Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon says.
The Netherlands parliament agreed that troops would be withdrawn from Afghanistan in July 2010, a decision that will affect Australian forces.
Australian and Dutch troops are stationed in the southern province of Oruzgan as part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).
The 1,600 Dutch soldiers stationed in Oruzgan since July 2006 are set to be reduced to about 1,200.
Australia's military contingent numbers about 1,000.
Mr Fitzgibbon says he is "delighted" that the Dutch have committed to stay in Afghanistan for another three years.
"Our partnership has been a strong and effective one," the minister told AAP.
He is hopeful the Netherlands will stay longer if the NATO strategy can be overhauled.
"While I respect the decision of the Dutch Parliament to not extend their commitment beyond July 2010, I remain hopeful that if we can develop a new and improved strategy and make better progress in Afghanistan, the Netherlands Parliament may reconsider its position," he said.
It remains uncertain whether other nations will send enough soldiers to replace the Dutch troops.
"I do not have assurances that other countries will be ready to replace Netherlands troops, but I am certain that Dutch troops will leave in 2010," Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen told journalists.
"I indicated that in writing ... to the NATO secretary-general, who has confirmed it."
Mr Fitzgibbon has ruled out lifting Australia's military commitment in the absence of a greater contribution from NATO member countries in Afghanistan.
But he has also signalled that Australia would be prepared to consider a larger military commitment if NATO members bolstered their own forces.
"As I said earlier this week, we need further commitments in Afghanistan, in particular from other NATO countries," the minister said.
-----------------------------
Apart from militairy activities a lot of other stuff is going on. Offering alternatives for poppy farming is going pretty well. At the moment the biggest problem is that most Afghans can't read or write, so to teach them how to govern places and institutes is quite a task. Also, our government made a deal with a German organization to do something good:
Dutch government announces redevelopment aid for Afghanistan
Published: December 17, 2007
THE HAGUE, Netherlands: The Dutch government announced Monday it has awarded a €34 million (US$49 million) contract to a German development organization to rebuild roads and help farmers in a southern Afghan province after years of conflict and neglect.
Overseas Development Minister Bert Koenders said the three-year contract for German group Gesellschaft fuer Technische Zusammenarbeit, or GTZ, would fund construction of a road between two key towns in Uruzgan province, Tirin Kot and Chora, and allow the group to help farmers find new markets for their goods.
GTZ, based in Eschborn near Frankfurt am Main, also will use the money to help set up small businesses and support local government.
The announcement came as lawmakers in the Dutch parliament prepared to debate the government's decision to extend its military mission with the NATO-led force in Afghanistan by two years until 2010. The coalition government is guaranteed of a majority of the country's 120 lawmakers supporting the deployment.
However, critics of the mission have said that the 1,650 Dutch troops in the southern province of Uruzgan are spending too much time fighting Taliban insurgents in the region and not enough restoring shattered infrastructure like roads and schools.
First the Dutch soldiers would leave in 2008, now the decision = leave in 2010, whatever happens. That's a prolongation. It's up to NATO to kick more butts of other countries.
Dutch troops to leave Afghanistan
December 19, 2007 - 7:11PM
Australia is hopeful the Netherlands will turn around its decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan within three years, Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon says.
The Netherlands parliament agreed that troops would be withdrawn from Afghanistan in July 2010, a decision that will affect Australian forces.
Australian and Dutch troops are stationed in the southern province of Oruzgan as part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).
The 1,600 Dutch soldiers stationed in Oruzgan since July 2006 are set to be reduced to about 1,200.
Australia's military contingent numbers about 1,000.
Mr Fitzgibbon says he is "delighted" that the Dutch have committed to stay in Afghanistan for another three years.
"Our partnership has been a strong and effective one," the minister told AAP.
He is hopeful the Netherlands will stay longer if the NATO strategy can be overhauled.
"While I respect the decision of the Dutch Parliament to not extend their commitment beyond July 2010, I remain hopeful that if we can develop a new and improved strategy and make better progress in Afghanistan, the Netherlands Parliament may reconsider its position," he said.
It remains uncertain whether other nations will send enough soldiers to replace the Dutch troops.
"I do not have assurances that other countries will be ready to replace Netherlands troops, but I am certain that Dutch troops will leave in 2010," Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen told journalists.
"I indicated that in writing ... to the NATO secretary-general, who has confirmed it."
Mr Fitzgibbon has ruled out lifting Australia's military commitment in the absence of a greater contribution from NATO member countries in Afghanistan.
But he has also signalled that Australia would be prepared to consider a larger military commitment if NATO members bolstered their own forces.
"As I said earlier this week, we need further commitments in Afghanistan, in particular from other NATO countries," the minister said.
-----------------------------
Apart from militairy activities a lot of other stuff is going on. Offering alternatives for poppy farming is going pretty well. At the moment the biggest problem is that most Afghans can't read or write, so to teach them how to govern places and institutes is quite a task. Also, our government made a deal with a German organization to do something good:
Dutch government announces redevelopment aid for Afghanistan
Published: December 17, 2007
THE HAGUE, Netherlands: The Dutch government announced Monday it has awarded a €34 million (US$49 million) contract to a German development organization to rebuild roads and help farmers in a southern Afghan province after years of conflict and neglect.
Overseas Development Minister Bert Koenders said the three-year contract for German group Gesellschaft fuer Technische Zusammenarbeit, or GTZ, would fund construction of a road between two key towns in Uruzgan province, Tirin Kot and Chora, and allow the group to help farmers find new markets for their goods.
GTZ, based in Eschborn near Frankfurt am Main, also will use the money to help set up small businesses and support local government.
The announcement came as lawmakers in the Dutch parliament prepared to debate the government's decision to extend its military mission with the NATO-led force in Afghanistan by two years until 2010. The coalition government is guaranteed of a majority of the country's 120 lawmakers supporting the deployment.
However, critics of the mission have said that the 1,650 Dutch troops in the southern province of Uruzgan are spending too much time fighting Taliban insurgents in the region and not enough restoring shattered infrastructure like roads and schools.
D
Deleted member 7164
Guest
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan
That's one of the smartest statements i've heard in a while.
But it also means that peace forces need to provide vast contigent of armies in order to preserve peace. That drains a lot of resources...The only possible "victory" for Afghanistan is to have foreigners repel any Taliban attacks, until the generation shift. With proper policy towards native people, not messing with their internal affairs much, but keeping a "big brother" attitude, with encouragements of personal freedom and education, it can be done.
Hopefully, then the whole generation of taliban warriors there are going to perish, and they aren't going to pass on the extremism to younger generations.
However, as i've watched on BBC, talibans still control an significant portion of the territory. One of the British reporters went there, was housed by the talibans and documented 4 days of his "visit". They have large number of arms, mostly personal firearms like AK-74 and rocket launchers, but they even have '70s era large caliber cannons and guns, together with an certain amount of anti-aircraft missile systems, mostly Stingers. Several hundred thousand people are under control of the taliban movement, that envolves children who are being trained as cold blooded killers (and no-one is better in that role than an child that doesn't understand anything...), families working to ensure food supplies etc...
I've also read some time ago a nice disseration of one international warfare specialist, who said that certain "elite" troops are being trained there also. Not only taliban, but Hezbollah and other islamic extremists. An result of that training was shown in the latest Israel vs Hezbollah clash...hezbiees managed to destroy a large number of israeli Merkava battletanks using Soviet ATG Kornet system. They're being trained as sharpshooters in that role.
But, contrary to what i believe regarding to Iraqi situation, Afghan situation can have a bright future and the best possible outcome...simply, the past regime was too nasty and it needed to be overthrown. Contrary to Iraq, where only close American allies stayed, in Afghan we have a large number of multi-national contigents. Even armies that are not part of NATO, like Croatia, Russia, etc...that shows that a large number of countries believe in a peace-bringing goal even today.
That's one of the smartest statements i've heard in a while.
But it also means that peace forces need to provide vast contigent of armies in order to preserve peace. That drains a lot of resources...The only possible "victory" for Afghanistan is to have foreigners repel any Taliban attacks, until the generation shift. With proper policy towards native people, not messing with their internal affairs much, but keeping a "big brother" attitude, with encouragements of personal freedom and education, it can be done.
Hopefully, then the whole generation of taliban warriors there are going to perish, and they aren't going to pass on the extremism to younger generations.
However, as i've watched on BBC, talibans still control an significant portion of the territory. One of the British reporters went there, was housed by the talibans and documented 4 days of his "visit". They have large number of arms, mostly personal firearms like AK-74 and rocket launchers, but they even have '70s era large caliber cannons and guns, together with an certain amount of anti-aircraft missile systems, mostly Stingers. Several hundred thousand people are under control of the taliban movement, that envolves children who are being trained as cold blooded killers (and no-one is better in that role than an child that doesn't understand anything...), families working to ensure food supplies etc...
I've also read some time ago a nice disseration of one international warfare specialist, who said that certain "elite" troops are being trained there also. Not only taliban, but Hezbollah and other islamic extremists. An result of that training was shown in the latest Israel vs Hezbollah clash...hezbiees managed to destroy a large number of israeli Merkava battletanks using Soviet ATG Kornet system. They're being trained as sharpshooters in that role.
But, contrary to what i believe regarding to Iraqi situation, Afghan situation can have a bright future and the best possible outcome...simply, the past regime was too nasty and it needed to be overthrown. Contrary to Iraq, where only close American allies stayed, in Afghan we have a large number of multi-national contigents. Even armies that are not part of NATO, like Croatia, Russia, etc...that shows that a large number of countries believe in a peace-bringing goal even today.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan
And who will help again? Yes, the good old United States.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gsc ... b4mjx0raCw
I'm glad about their help.
And who will help again? Yes, the good old United States.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gsc ... b4mjx0raCw
I'm glad about their help.
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan
If the US wasn't in Iraq, maybe we could get some things done in Afghanistan. But I happen to know that the guys forward deployed are never sad to see Americans come. This is the right place to have soldiers.
If the US wasn't in Iraq, maybe we could get some things done in Afghanistan. But I happen to know that the guys forward deployed are never sad to see Americans come. This is the right place to have soldiers.
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan
Well, it'd be nice if the US sent 10 or 15 thousand infantry to Afghanistan to help there. I have absolutely no problem with keeping Canadian soldiers there as long as the rest of NATO chips in. This is a really sad event. To my thinking, Afghanistan sponsered an attack on a NATO ally. It's part of a military alliance...everyone should have their chips in.
Well, it'd be nice if the US sent 10 or 15 thousand infantry to Afghanistan to help there. I have absolutely no problem with keeping Canadian soldiers there as long as the rest of NATO chips in. This is a really sad event. To my thinking, Afghanistan sponsered an attack on a NATO ally. It's part of a military alliance...everyone should have their chips in.
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan
Well, this is it. As far as I'm concerned, the USA has no leg to stand on here. But I guess we better get out the waterboards and start torturing people so we can better emulate the USA...
Well, this is it. As far as I'm concerned, the USA has no leg to stand on here. But I guess we better get out the waterboards and start torturing people so we can better emulate the USA...
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan
Gates praises NATO allies in Afghanistan
Published: Thursday 17 January 2008 17:37 UTC
Last updated: Thursday 17 January 2008 17:38 UTC
Washington - US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has expressed his appreciation of the performance of NATO troops in Afghanistan. He says the deployment of additional US marines does not reflect on the military performance of other countries' forces in the country. Mr Gates praised the "valour and sacrifice" of NATO allies, including the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Denmark and the Netherlands.
Mr Gates commendation follows a critical interview in the Los Angeles Times, in which he was quoted as saying that certain NATO units in Afghanistan were ill prepared to fight an insurgency.
Following angry reactions from The Hague, the US ambassador to the Netherlands said that Mr Gates' remarks were taken out of context. Dutch Defence Minister Eimert Middelkoop says he has accepted the ambassador's explanation and considers the matter closed. However a parliamentary majority has refused to accept the US ambassador's explanation.
-------------
I also just read the following on the website of Trouw (Dutch newspaper)
Translating some parts:
Gates apologizes to Van Middelkoop
Minister of Defense Eimert van Middelkoop (ChristenUnion) received apologies by telephone, from his American collegue Robert Gates, on thursday night. He apologized for the 'confusion' which came from an interview with the Los Angeles Times. ....
...according to a spokesman Gates said he regretted the situation. Hij had no intention to criticize specific countries, and definitely not the Netherlands. "The Netherlands have taken responsibilty and went to the front of the battlefield."
In the talk Gates praised the Netherlands for getting rid of the Taliban. Van Middelkoop said that he already estimated that it was about a misunderstanding. The minister thanked the Americans for their promise to send 3.200 soldiers to the south of Afghanistan.
Gates praises NATO allies in Afghanistan
Published: Thursday 17 January 2008 17:37 UTC
Last updated: Thursday 17 January 2008 17:38 UTC
Washington - US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has expressed his appreciation of the performance of NATO troops in Afghanistan. He says the deployment of additional US marines does not reflect on the military performance of other countries' forces in the country. Mr Gates praised the "valour and sacrifice" of NATO allies, including the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Denmark and the Netherlands.
Mr Gates commendation follows a critical interview in the Los Angeles Times, in which he was quoted as saying that certain NATO units in Afghanistan were ill prepared to fight an insurgency.
Following angry reactions from The Hague, the US ambassador to the Netherlands said that Mr Gates' remarks were taken out of context. Dutch Defence Minister Eimert Middelkoop says he has accepted the ambassador's explanation and considers the matter closed. However a parliamentary majority has refused to accept the US ambassador's explanation.
-------------
I also just read the following on the website of Trouw (Dutch newspaper)
Translating some parts:
Gates apologizes to Van Middelkoop
Minister of Defense Eimert van Middelkoop (ChristenUnion) received apologies by telephone, from his American collegue Robert Gates, on thursday night. He apologized for the 'confusion' which came from an interview with the Los Angeles Times. ....
...according to a spokesman Gates said he regretted the situation. Hij had no intention to criticize specific countries, and definitely not the Netherlands. "The Netherlands have taken responsibilty and went to the front of the battlefield."
In the talk Gates praised the Netherlands for getting rid of the Taliban. Van Middelkoop said that he already estimated that it was about a misunderstanding. The minister thanked the Americans for their promise to send 3.200 soldiers to the south of Afghanistan.
Deano
Ancient Mariner
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan
I can personally say that the Dutch have done a superb job in Afghanistan. I am not sure of their combat related role but they have contributed greatly to rebuilding (or lets just say building) infrastructure throughout a good portion of the country. The difference between 2002 and now is evident.
Afghanistan has almost no natural resources (it is extremely cruel that that region was not even blessed with oil deposits); money must be made primarily from opium growth, as in most places that is all that is suitable for growth and the money is good for the farmers. You cannot blame them for this and as discussed previously in this topic, is a cause for much of the tribal warfare in outlying regions.
From what I have seen, I have to praise NATO European (and other nations) for taking the risk of investing in this area. The only way this country will be able to support itself is by means that do not rely on the land to bring forth practical profit. Communications, IT and hosting opportunities have been made possible because of these initiatives taken by allied nations. This will play a key part in getting the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other nuts out of there in coming years and generations; giving these deserving people a leg to stand on. From my point of view: Kudos NATO, what you do behind the scene is just as important and sending a round down range.
I can personally say that the Dutch have done a superb job in Afghanistan. I am not sure of their combat related role but they have contributed greatly to rebuilding (or lets just say building) infrastructure throughout a good portion of the country. The difference between 2002 and now is evident.
Afghanistan has almost no natural resources (it is extremely cruel that that region was not even blessed with oil deposits); money must be made primarily from opium growth, as in most places that is all that is suitable for growth and the money is good for the farmers. You cannot blame them for this and as discussed previously in this topic, is a cause for much of the tribal warfare in outlying regions.
From what I have seen, I have to praise NATO European (and other nations) for taking the risk of investing in this area. The only way this country will be able to support itself is by means that do not rely on the land to bring forth practical profit. Communications, IT and hosting opportunities have been made possible because of these initiatives taken by allied nations. This will play a key part in getting the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other nuts out of there in coming years and generations; giving these deserving people a leg to stand on. From my point of view: Kudos NATO, what you do behind the scene is just as important and sending a round down range.
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan
I hope we stay. But we'll see. But we'll see.
I hope we stay. But we'll see. But we'll see.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan
Hmm, great... I would understand people could be cynical about helping Afghanistan, after knowing this:
Afghanistan's senate has endorsed a death sentence handed down by a court to a reporter and journalism student accused of blasphemy
More news: Dutch don't expect Canada to leave Afghanistan
Hmm, great... I would understand people could be cynical about helping Afghanistan, after knowing this:
Afghanistan's senate has endorsed a death sentence handed down by a court to a reporter and journalism student accused of blasphemy
More news: Dutch don't expect Canada to leave Afghanistan
A
Anonymous
Guest
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan
This is from a blog:
A German news magazine printed excerpts of the book, which I read two weeks ago. What has been written there ranges from "unbelievable" to "scandalous". Of course, the major political issue in Germany now is that troops have operated outside of the mandate territory.
The green area is where German troops are allowed to operate. The red cities are where German bases are located. Add to this a limited territory in Kabul; the operations the Bundeswehr is accused of took place outside of Kabul.
The German parliament (Bundestag) only agrees to the Afghanistan mandate -which, as the blog author correctly noted, is highly unpopular in Germany- on the condition that the Bundeswehr operates only in these borders. You could say that Germany considered its mandate as something slightly more than a police operation.
Wohlgethan also describes how ridiculously undisciplined and underarmed the German forces were. Although there are strict regulations on a maximum two cans of beer per day, the soldiers get drunk nearly every evening; the command chooses to ignore this, apparently because they prefer to see a bottle in a soldier's mouth to a gun.
Bundeswehr soldiers get (or got, I'm not sure) transported in regular Afghan buses, because they lack armoured vehicles, while they get transported over land- one of those buses once blew up under circumstances I'm not sure of.
Germany wants to "play it safe" because the constitution forbids any offensive military action. The mission is controversial among people of all political camps. There was indeed a huge controversy about those five or six fucking aeroplanes that are being used for reconnaissance missions outside of the mandate. Many conservatives don't support it because they don't see any gain for Germany from it, and they disagree with the former defence minister Struck, who claimed that German interests are defended at the Hindukush. On the other side of the spectrum, the leftists oppose it because... well, they are shit-stirrers and just need to be against it. There's also something about being pacifist, but if that's coming from a party that used to shoot people who wanted to flee from their country, I don't really believe it.
This is from a blog:
A German news magazine printed excerpts of the book, which I read two weeks ago. What has been written there ranges from "unbelievable" to "scandalous". Of course, the major political issue in Germany now is that troops have operated outside of the mandate territory.
The green area is where German troops are allowed to operate. The red cities are where German bases are located. Add to this a limited territory in Kabul; the operations the Bundeswehr is accused of took place outside of Kabul.
The German parliament (Bundestag) only agrees to the Afghanistan mandate -which, as the blog author correctly noted, is highly unpopular in Germany- on the condition that the Bundeswehr operates only in these borders. You could say that Germany considered its mandate as something slightly more than a police operation.
Wohlgethan also describes how ridiculously undisciplined and underarmed the German forces were. Although there are strict regulations on a maximum two cans of beer per day, the soldiers get drunk nearly every evening; the command chooses to ignore this, apparently because they prefer to see a bottle in a soldier's mouth to a gun.
Bundeswehr soldiers get (or got, I'm not sure) transported in regular Afghan buses, because they lack armoured vehicles, while they get transported over land- one of those buses once blew up under circumstances I'm not sure of.
Germany wants to "play it safe" because the constitution forbids any offensive military action. The mission is controversial among people of all political camps. There was indeed a huge controversy about those five or six fucking aeroplanes that are being used for reconnaissance missions outside of the mandate. Many conservatives don't support it because they don't see any gain for Germany from it, and they disagree with the former defence minister Struck, who claimed that German interests are defended at the Hindukush. On the other side of the spectrum, the leftists oppose it because... well, they are shit-stirrers and just need to be against it. There's also something about being pacifist, but if that's coming from a party that used to shoot people who wanted to flee from their country, I don't really believe it.
Deano
Ancient Mariner
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan
I can say with some authority that the accusations of using Afghan children for mine clearing are unfounded. Could it have happened? Possibly, but I have known EOD techs from several different nations that went out everyday to clear large stretches of land and this was never the tactic. These guys are amongst the most professional of military occupational specialties for obvious reasons.
It is a shame that a German soldier is speaking out like this. Again, I cannot outright say that the possibility of some of this information has the chance of being true but it was never observed on my part. I really enjoyed the time I spent there with German soldiers; I can honestly say that I had a few beers with them but at no point was the consumption enough to cause drunkenness. The quantity is just not there. Perhaps it would be enough for some, but for a nationality with the intestinal fortitude for alcohol like Germans, no way.
I can say with some authority that the accusations of using Afghan children for mine clearing are unfounded. Could it have happened? Possibly, but I have known EOD techs from several different nations that went out everyday to clear large stretches of land and this was never the tactic. These guys are amongst the most professional of military occupational specialties for obvious reasons.
It is a shame that a German soldier is speaking out like this. Again, I cannot outright say that the possibility of some of this information has the chance of being true but it was never observed on my part. I really enjoyed the time I spent there with German soldiers; I can honestly say that I had a few beers with them but at no point was the consumption enough to cause drunkenness. The quantity is just not there. Perhaps it would be enough for some, but for a nationality with the intestinal fortitude for alcohol like Germans, no way.
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan
I know the Canadians have a similar limit on alcohol consumption. Hell, beer companies are sending kegs to Kandahar free of charge, and the boys aren't even allowed to indulge in that except on special occasions (like major hockey games).
Honestly, I think that a lot of European governments are really dishonouring NATO with their behaviour in Afghanistan. That is in addition to me despising the manner in which the USA virtually abandoned their Afghan efforts to go off on George Bush's fairy tale expedition into Iraq.
Fact: a NATO ally was attacked by Al Qaeda which received support from the Taliban, a faction which ruled Afghanistan. NATO responded with force, according to its mandate, and took Afghanistan from the Taliban. Currently, it's a matter of keeping the Taliban down, and that involves, surprise, fighting them. This war is reactionary, and even if there is offensive portions to it, it is primarily a defensive reaction to a strike on a NATO member.
Canada ran a fact-finding mission that said all we really need in support is an additional thousand soldiers in Afghanistan to give us some leeway to the troops we have. I don't think it's too much to ask for. There's lots of countries with minimal involvement in Afghanistan - France, Belgium, Italy, Greece. Hell, I don't care if the Czechs or Belorussians send the thousand men. It would be nice to see somebody step up to the plate and honour a treaty that yes, was signed first in the Cold War, but still endures as the most multicultural and border-spanning alliance of all time. It's very sad to see people ignoring it.
I know the Canadians have a similar limit on alcohol consumption. Hell, beer companies are sending kegs to Kandahar free of charge, and the boys aren't even allowed to indulge in that except on special occasions (like major hockey games).
Honestly, I think that a lot of European governments are really dishonouring NATO with their behaviour in Afghanistan. That is in addition to me despising the manner in which the USA virtually abandoned their Afghan efforts to go off on George Bush's fairy tale expedition into Iraq.
Fact: a NATO ally was attacked by Al Qaeda which received support from the Taliban, a faction which ruled Afghanistan. NATO responded with force, according to its mandate, and took Afghanistan from the Taliban. Currently, it's a matter of keeping the Taliban down, and that involves, surprise, fighting them. This war is reactionary, and even if there is offensive portions to it, it is primarily a defensive reaction to a strike on a NATO member.
Canada ran a fact-finding mission that said all we really need in support is an additional thousand soldiers in Afghanistan to give us some leeway to the troops we have. I don't think it's too much to ask for. There's lots of countries with minimal involvement in Afghanistan - France, Belgium, Italy, Greece. Hell, I don't care if the Czechs or Belorussians send the thousand men. It would be nice to see somebody step up to the plate and honour a treaty that yes, was signed first in the Cold War, but still endures as the most multicultural and border-spanning alliance of all time. It's very sad to see people ignoring it.